LEFANDE v. MISCHE-HOEGES

LEFANDE v. MISCHE-HOEGES

Plaintiff:	MATTHEW AUGUST LEFANDE
Defendant:	CAROLYN ANNE MISCHE-HOEGES
Case Number:	1:2010cv01857
Filed:	November 1, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the District of Columbia
Office:	Washington, DC Office
County:	88888
Presiding Judge:	Henry H. Kennedy
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 20, 2016	Filing 34 ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's # 5 motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to all of Plaintiff's federal Constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief ca n be granted because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in his complaint that plausibly suggest that Defendant was acting under color of state law, i.e., performing her official duties, at the time that she engaged in any of the actions about which Plaintiff complains. The Court further ORDERS that the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintif f's federal claims. Furthermore, the Court finds that, although this case has been pending before this Court for some time, having balanced all of the relevant factors, including, but not limited to, comity and judicial economy, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's state-law claims. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 10/20/2016. (Scullin, Frederick)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 20, 2016

Filing 34 ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's # 5 motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to all of Plaintiff's federal Constitutional claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to state a claim upon which relief ca n be granted because Plaintiff has not alleged any facts in his complaint that plausibly suggest that Defendant was acting under color of state law, i.e., performing her official duties, at the time that she engaged in any of the actions about which Plaintiff complains. The Court further ORDERS that the Court declines to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), because the Court has dismissed all of Plaintif f's federal claims. Furthermore, the Court finds that, although this case has been pending before this Court for some time, having balanced all of the relevant factors, including, but not limited to, comity and judicial economy, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's state-law claims. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 10/20/2016. (Scullin, Frederick)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: LEFANDE v. MISCHE-HOEGES
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: MATTHEW AUGUST LEFANDE
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: CAROLYN ANNE MISCHE-HOEGES
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?